tv Ali Velshi on Target Al Jazeera November 22, 2015 2:30pm-3:01pm EST
more of these street poles are being made from recycled plastic. waste people would ordinarily throw away you can find out much more about many of our stories over on our website. click onto aljazeera.com next. i'm ali velshi "on target" in istanbul, in a moment my conversation with former utah governor, ambassador to china and former candidate john huntsman on the greatest dangers facing our world. i'm ali velshi, and we are on target in istanbul. oig at the atlantic council energy and economic summit in istanbul. the atlanta council is a think
tank headed by the former u.s. president yam candidate, ambassador to china john huntsman. we spoke about some of the biggest crisis facing the world. >> we have had a wake up call, and the american people who are war weary want to do something about it. i see in light of the aftermath of the paris attack, that a threat is imminent, it's closer and closer to the shores, and there's a political moment of doing something. then the multifaceted approach. you can't just deal with i.s.i.s. in isolation, you have to put the region back together, which means starting in syria, you can't handle syria without a multilateral effort within the region, including a lot of players, some of whom we don't
have a strong relationship with. it will take real leadership and skill around the development of the strategy. and patience. i'm not sure that this is something we are able to dispense with in a short period of time. >> part of the issue with patience is that people right into here, in turkey, where they've heard the numbers in excess of 300,000. we met some this week. they are heading out, west. and ugly sentiments in the west. in the united states. about not wanting the refugees, we have a growing crisis, the biggest since world war ii, how are we supposed to come to terms with this. we do what america has done, and that is we are compassionate or we have to mix compassion with security. we have to read the inscription on the statue of liberty again and again.
a bit about the huddled masses escaping oppression abroad. these are not typical refugees who decide they want to pack up and move somewhere else. there's a tragedy playing out in their homeland. we have to deal well it as we have. i am not sure we have to rewrite the rule back on what it means to be the united states of america. but it's fair for governors, and many have gone back to homeland security and say what of the protocols in place, let's review them and make them rob u. everyone wants assurances where you might get people whose clear. >> you were governor, and you had an enlightened view on immigration when you were in utah. are you surprised at the way the governments are going about this. it's not a matter of going back to homeland security and i.s.i.l., they are saying no syrian refugees in our state.
>> it's a political response to a deeper more structural issue, and it's probably not a surprise to anyone. i think they are giving voice to the sentiment that they are hearing on the street. which is alarm and fear. this is it unprecedented in terms of the numbers, the types who might be coming in of the modalities of violence that have been perpetrated in europe and in the middle east. people are fright ened so politicians that want to stay ahead of that fear give rise to that. there's not many words that can be used. that's where they have to rely on the federal government to make sure they are doing what they can and
that the federal government is recognising the checks to the extent you can do that. they can give a better comfort represent. >> you talk about china, the spratly islands and the south china sea, i don't know what comes of it, but there's a bit of a war of words going on. end? >> it is a function of the assertive leadership of xi jinping, who has been around since 2012. he is not going around soon. he'll be in power through 2022, through the party/party congress and has two levels of power, and in order to keep the population quayesent. they have gone from almost double digits over 30 years now to mid single digits.
higher unemployment. the stock market developing bubbles that burst. people losing savings in significant i am not sure. the other power is nationalism. i think they used it vis-a-vis japan, against shinzo abe. with the spratly islands. people get whipped up into an emotional frenzy. in the south china sea, we have a different set of claims by five nation states, china being one, bringing the national sentiment. so the assertive approach that he's taken to the spratly and parasol islands in, with that big expansive south china sea, it goes all the way from vietnam, sweeping down across malaysia and singapore, up by the philippines, who is taking them to court over a claim. this place or at home.
there's a lot of domestic politics wrapped up into what xi jinping is doing. >> the danger is, and i heard you talking about this - that our relationship from the military perspective is such that someone can do the wrong de-escalate. >> this is a problem. when you are not talking enough military to military and don't have a hot line that is plugged in. when you have an unexpected situation on the high seas or in the air, because you have half-a-dozen reconnaissance countries trying to learn and watch and pick up intel, you have an incident and it's impossible to de-escalate without tensions getting high and without the bilateral relationship thrown off kilter, for a long period of time. it's a dangerous set of circumstances, and you have to
get back to how do you manage tensions during this period. the rhetoric will be hot. you have a debate. the chinese know that, they direct rhetoric at us to. in terms of the operational aspects of all of this. it must be a concern. it was a concern for me when i was u.s. ambassador in beijing, if you have the situation, how do you de-escalate without throwing the most important relationship. 21st century off kiter, then you have a lot of collateral damage in terms of trade, economic investment, collaboration in the region, a lot of other things that we should be working on together, that typically don't make the headlines. >> does the pivot away from china to the rest of asia make sense, should china have been part of the t.p.p. >> their standards are not such that they'd be allowed in. over time, let's see if they can
earn that right. and a li lateral investment treaty would be a logical first step. the bet is a first chapter of trade agreement on investment. that is oftentimes the hardest part of negotiation with another country, because it supposes you open doors, provide guarantees and take on domestic favourites that are politically challenging. no, they are not to the standard that the other 11 t.p.p. countries find themselves at. but there's nothing that says that we shouldn't have an incentive programme. that could be a good lodge of this term aspirational strategy with china. >> stay with us, more to come on target from istanbul, when we come back, i speak to a former u.s. ambassador to turkey, who says this country matters almost more than any other in the fight against terrorism.
i had a chance to sit with a former u.s. ambassador to turkey, who explains how it went from being a country that felt more european from where i am now, into a country that felt pore asian. >> does -- more asian. >> does turkey share our values. >> it does, but at the same time it's part of this travelled world in the way west of europe or the united states is not a part of. it's truly a pivotal country. >> geographically, strategically, emotionally. >> anna tolia - turkey is only 93 years old - was pivotal. all the armies that swept through. civilisation that have fallen, the department of turkey has been a pretty impressive
country. i witnessed a coup and a half. turkey's success as a modern republic matters not only to the western world, the world rule of law, the architecture, world rules, but also to this region. it's not about bringing turkey into europe, it's a matter of bringing whatever the future of syria or iraq will be, into what turkey has been able to achieve. in that rules based international order. that's the pivotal importance of turkey for me. you were ambassador from 2011 to 2014. back in five, turkey plied for membership in the e.u., things were going well. and it made substantial changes, the kind of changes that would have brought it to the standard of being an e.u. country. some time around - before you got here, while you were here, the word got out that there are
not going to be muslims in the e.u., or not a muslim country in the e.u. how much did that contribute to turkey turning away from the west a little bit, and turning to the east a little more. >> you know, there's the dynamics have impetus on both sides, there are popular emotions, feelings and interest, you can get into a downward spiral or a virtuous upwards spiral. in the '90s, when turkey was admitted to the european customs union, and it had a positive impact on the turkish and european economy. one thing built on another, to a formal accession process, leading to a solution of the cypress problem, which stood in the way, when you pointed to 2005/2005. there was a plan very nearly a solution to the cyprus issue. and that was the high water mark
of the european process with turkey. when that failed, because the greek cypriots rejected it, that set back the process. nonetheless, turkey had a ministry for european affairs which, to my knowledge, persists to this day. it remains the policy of the republic of turkey, certainly where a pundit and a states person or someone makes a statement that sounds race. >>, racist or prejudicial on the basis of anything. in today's world that flies around in the mainstream media, in youtube, on twitter, it has an impact. people encounter that. we didn't want those grapes anyway, they were sour. who wants to be part of the eurozone any, and you get that sort of not well thought through angry reaction that can feed on each other.
the thoughtful people i think on all sides, in europe and turkey see the value of bringing turkey ever closer into the system, trade, rule of law, common standards whether industrial products or the way of governing and living. the human rights, if you will, freedom and european definitions of freedoms, which do not exist europe. >> that's a fair statement. they are different. the concepts of freedom of expression, and the limits of freedom of expression are different. do you think this gets back on track. do you think turkey can tradle as it has -- straddle as it has the important role in the east, and better relations and west? >> do you know, i think turkey can do better than straddle
competing difficult forces, it can take advantage of the differences in geography, culture, economics, power. if it's good, and wise and taps its natural advantages, it can grow, develop and become stronger - even in terms of civil society and economy. it has been doing that with greater success or lesser success over the past 10-15 years. there were ups and downs. that's normal in the life of any modern republic, i'm optimistic about turkey. >> in the last debate, hillary clinton said turkey, among other countries, has to make up its us. >> did hillary clinton say that. >> yes, turkey and the gulf states, by the way, but they've
got to make up their mind are they with us or against us. plays well at home, is it fair. >> with respect to hillary clinton, of course it's not fair. of course not. states are throughout history with you on some things and against you on others. i don't know the context. maybe in the terms of the fight against terrorism. in that sense it's fair or the united states to rally those who are with us and those in a less incentive which. maybe it's time to get rid of us and then. we had a rules base international order. in which the middle east participates. legitimate well-governed states that educate their kids well. to think of us, and not
tech fearism,... >> the idea that you make someone a pos-state, identifying the other or making them as shunned, persecuted or killed. >> yes. >> i think the gulf states, the ones i know, and that is the most conservative. saudi arabia, and turkey, and in the west are part of that us. i really do. there are elements of haters within that world. sad to say in the west. you find haters that look at the or and want to keep them out. maybe it's time to stop thinking about us and them, with us or against us and realise there's an us that is powerful if we can identify that common purpose stay with us, more from istanbul. when we come back, i'll speak to a security effort that says the west is not doing enough to fight terrorism.
attended by turkey's president recep tayyip erdogan. it was held by the atlanta council, and i got a chance to speak to the atlanta council security expert. he says the u.s. is not on top of things when it comes to the fight against terrorism. >> the way i think about i.s.i.l., and this may not be enough - there's three main articles they use, three main instruments to achieve horrendous goals. one is the military. and the terrorist attacks. they do that very obviously increasingly effectively. the other instrument is just through governance of the areas, you know, providing services which is a mixed bag, obviously, when you live under a group like i.s.i.s. the third is in the cyber and digital domain, and to me it's a core power base. they wouldn't be able to recruit nearly as much, they wouldn't be able to get as much funding, be as effective and influential - who knows, maybe they wouldn't be able to direct operations in
far flung places. so i think if we are only treating them as a physical problem. we are missing a huge amount of the problem and will not resolve it, or be effective. >> we are starting to see it as an ideological problem or a battle of civilizations, but an idea logical apocalyptical cult. we need to do battle. it boggles the mind that western counties and the united states couldn't have better capabilities than i.s.i.l. has. is it a question of capability or focus and concentration on a counter message? >> i think that western governments, as you put it, and some of our middle eastern colleagues, that had the same interest in the fight. i think they are, in many ways, stuck in 20th century professies, prosecution
brothethies, after all the united states was designed for these services 70 years ago. when you deal with decentralized network energy using the domain to attract alienated youth, and to bring people to the battle field, you need to be quick, responsive, talk their language, know twitter and the other social media they use. the government has not figured out how to get the pace and content right. this strikes me as an obvious area for private-public partnership, where we go to the best messaging people in the united states, in the region, and work to come up with a model problem. >> there's a new foundation for that, a center in u.a.e. thast focuses on this problem. >> you have a view that we need to be tougher all around,
including in the military, and you said that not doing the right thing in syria, or not moving quickly in syria may have been part of the problem. we have power vacuoles in several -- vam ums in several -- vakuals in several state in the middle east that may be allowing i.s.i.l. to show up to those communities and do those things. >> for four years the obama administration treated the problem as humanitarian crisis only, and certainly the humanitarian suffering has been horrendous. 250,000 plus, who knows what the real number is. syrians killed by bashar al-assad, barrel bombs. this horrendous suffering. what they have been missing and i don't under why is the foreign fighters going into and out of the battlefield, radicalized,
trained, going back to the battlefield. numbers are dwarfing anything we have seen in the intelligence community, we saw the numbers two years ago. i think we should have connected the streams, the menace from looking at the numbers of fighters, and the calendar ron of a humanitarian crisis that is the number one incubator for islamist extremism. we should do more, it's not too late. we still can, but it will be a difficult challenge, this is the challenge that the united states can do, working with allies and partners. the u.s. can lead the coalition, they should not be the only one, but lead a coalition, organise and do what we have done in the past, like in the balkan wars, which were complex, messy, and we applied enormous military power to ab solve the civil war, and diplomatic leverage to get
agreement. >> we can do the same thing. >> you agree there needs to be more military power, more presence in syria and iraq. >> of course, in syria and iraq, which this is the center of the factory, we have to do more military power. if this is an enemy that poses such a threat that it's a gant threat to the united states that president obama would give a speech saying we need to degrade and defeat the enemy, it seems worth it to devote the level of military effort to do that, not the u.s. only, but we need to do what is required. afling is demonstrate at the goals that we would seek for it, but al qaeda, as an organization in afghanistan is weakened. from military, the whole range of instruments the u.s. government brought to bare. we need to do the same thing